WSA Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) I do think this analysis points out that the context of any proposed evidence is as important as the actual evidence. You can't get away from the confirmation that bears were in the vicinity, even though the last confirmed photo of one was about 30 minutes previously. I would just cite this as something to be mindful of, no matter as to which side of the debate the evidence seems to favor. The Grey's Harbor thermal is a much thornier problem, in my estimation. For one, there was a human operator on the stick, not a game cam. The impressions of that person, and their judgment is not something I can overlook. The f/u analysis did more to strengthen my impressions than otherwise...not the case with the Jacobs image, which seemed to not hold up as well under scrutiny. And while the Jacobs animal can fit within the boundaries and geometry of a bear, the thermal image is a much squarer peg in a much rounder hole for me. Edited December 1, 2015 by WSA 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 To be clear, the BFRO still maintains that it was a squatch based on dmaker's link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Chimps are not nocturnal animals, and they don't live in Pennsylvania bear country. Why are you making it difficult? It's so easy. Because it doesnt look like a bear? It looks much more like the chimp comparison some one posted to me. And we have 2000 registered chimps in north America with many more not listed. Its not beyond the realm of possibility at all. I'm not a bear whisperer, but I have hunted bear over bait as well as called them in. It doesnt look like a bear to me. And if it did look like a bear these pictures would not have gone viral and we wouldnt be talking about them. I of course could be wrong. I don't think it looks like a Sasquatch to be sure, it does lack a heel, but so does a chimp. And it looks plenty big enough that it shouldnt be crawling around on all fours since the species is reportedly bipedal. Dont worry Drew, the fact you think its a bear hasnt destroyed your credibility with me! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 This is a comparison I did a few years ago with a 3D model of a bear skeleton. It shows the lumps on the backside match up to the pelvic bones of a bear. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) Would it be safe to say a chimp would have similar points? I also see you dont subscribe to the idea that the photo is of a nursing sow facing the camera with a cub underneath..... I think you have it positioned right rogue whatever it is. Edited December 2, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Jacobs is, like Patty, done. Although it will always be debated - until confirmation, at which it will be interesting where we come down, and oh we will come down, it's what we do - there is no other evidence that can be followed. All either thing can be is an assertion waiting for an answer. It is not essential or even possible to know what every photograph represents. We're stuck on Jacobs. Bear is not at all an easy fit. The Jacobs photo is interesting. I don't know what it is. I grew up in a bear preserve. It does not look like any of the literally thousands of bears I've seen. I don't necessarily think it's a sasquatch either. I think it best to toss it in the "hmmmm" pile. Jumping to premature conclusions **of either sort** is .. premature. I don't understand why people can't leave puzzles as puzzles and instead latch onto answers that can't be defended with integrity. Recently an animated gif I'd never seen before surfaced. The first pic is new, the middle one seems to be the Jacobs photo we're all familar with, and the third is clearly a bear. That first picture puts the "bear-ness" of the Jacobs photo into greater doubt ... at least for me. It seems to be the same figure but turned a bit. Like I said, I grew up in a bear preserve. I also hunt them other places. Bears ears are cartilage. They don't grow much so as a bear ages and gets bigger, its ears appear progressively proportionally smaller and smaller. They also seemingly slowly relocate from right on top of the head down to the upper side of the head. As a hunter, if you're after a trophy bear, look for bears that have very small seeming ears mounted relatively low on the head. So, relative to the photos, if this is a baby bear, the ears should be quite prominent and mounted high. I don't see them. The pictures aren't clear but they are clear enough. Unless this is a very old bear, the lack of prominent ears is a giant red flag. The other thing that is missing is a rostrum ... a prominent, protruding snout. If the head is turned away so we can't see the snout, the ears should display clearly. If the head is turned to the side so the ears are hidden against the head, the snout should be prominently displayed. Neither case seems true. I think calling this a bear demonstrates no knowledge of bear anatomy whatsoever. None. That doesn't make it a sasquatch. However, putting your "weight" behind a shaky claim it's a bear just to prove it can't be a sasquatch reeks of a wizard-of-oz -style "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain" ploy. It's a puzzle best left as a puzzle. MIB Re-posted because I didn't want to type the whole why-I-think, and he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 3, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted December 3, 2015 Bear. I am surprised the bear image has surfaced. I have had images of mangy bears, bears with nice fur, bears walking forward, backwards and standing. Bear with me on this on. Have you noticed that there is nothing further from Mr. Jacobs? They never released all the pictures from the sd card either to show the sequence of events leading up to and away from that hunched over pic Its not a Bear. And with that, any outdoor credibility Norseman might have had, goes up in smoke... http://bnatural-muddyvalley.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-weeks-game-cam-photos.html There is a bear in almost the same pose (4th pic down) Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) I have switched camps on this one over the years, and it was the context of the other bears moving through the area which drew me toward the conclusion of it being a mangy bear. I think the feet which are actually more paws give it away anyway. So we have to lean toward the most likely scenario when we look at any evidence. If a mess of coyotes are vocalizing and you hear a strange sound, well you should not jump to sasquatch in your head, to some extent we allow our belief in the creature to taint our perception. Edited December 3, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Would it be safe to say a chimp would have similar points? I also see you dont subscribe to the idea that the photo is of a nursing sow facing the camera with a cub underneath..... I think you have it positioned right rogue whatever it is. If you look at a chimp's pelvic bones they're flat and go to the sides when on all fours. A bear's pelvic bones stick up and create a protrusion. This is an illustration of a skeleton at the University of Guelph. Look at where the back arches compared to the Jacobs? Also look how long the chimp's feet are in that model compared to the shorter bear feet on the Jacob creature? Edited December 3, 2015 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) I have switched camps on this one over the years, and it was the context of the other bears moving through the area which drew me toward the conclusion of it being a mangy bear. I think the feet which are actually more paws give it away anyway. So we have to lean toward the most likely scenario when we look at any evidence. If a mess of coyotes are vocalizing and you hear a strange sound, well you should not jump to sasquatch in your head, to some extent we allow our belief in the creature to taint our perception. See, this is the problem I have with this. The other things in the video have no bearing; what is this thing? One of the most irrational aspects of bigfoot skepticism - which is irrational in toto - is "it must not be a bigfoot, no matter what." The WA thermal is held by a number of people to be a cow, despite the cows in the thermal all being clearly cows, and just as clearly behaving and looking in absolutely no way like the figure, which would set off alarms with many bigfoot eyewitnesses. You will not find a cow thermal on the internet that looks anything like the WA thermal figure (no you won't; people tried). I have no belief in anything. I am as thoroughly skeptical as you will find here. It's not belief, people! Evidence. Period. WA is not a cow. No way possible. If Jacobs is a bear, which I cannot completely utterly discount, it is one of the weirdest bears on record or a couple of history's strangest photographs; and I'd have to say that the evidence falls firmly, from a scientific standpoint, on: not bear. Edited December 3, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post dmaker Posted December 3, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) ^^^ That is all well and good, DWA, but you thought the shag carpet walking by the camera in an April Fools joke was a really, real bigfoot. Your powers of evidence sussing do not impress me. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50874-wellhmmmm-what-have-we-here/ Edited December 3, 2015 by dmaker 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 In the upright photo of the Jacob's creature the upper arm length compared to the lower arm length seems off compared to that of the bear skeleton two posts up. The proportions are off from the bear. Does anyone have the means to measure this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I have switched camps on this one over the years, and it was the context of the other bears moving through the area which drew me toward the conclusion of it being a mangy bear. I think the feet which are actually more paws give it away anyway. So we have to lean toward the most likely scenario when we look at any evidence. If a mess of coyotes are vocalizing and you hear a strange sound, well you should not jump to sasquatch in your head, to some extent we allow our belief in the creature to taint our perception. See, this is the problem I have with this. The other things in the video have no bearing; what is this thing? One of the most irrational aspects of bigfoot skepticism - which is irrational in toto - is "it must not be a bigfoot, no matter what." The WA thermal is held by a number of people to be a cow, despite the cows in the thermal all being clearly cows, and just as clearly behaving and looking in absolutely no way like the figure, which would set off alarms with many bigfoot eyewitnesses. You will not find a cow thermal on the internet that looks anything like the WA thermal figure (no you won't; people tried). I have no belief in anything. I am as thoroughly skeptical as you will find here. It's not belief, people! Evidence. Period. WA is not a cow. No way possible. If Jacobs is a bear, which I cannot completely utterly discount, it is one of the weirdest bears on record or a couple of history's strangest photographs; and I'd have to say that the evidence falls firmly, from a scientific standpoint, on: not bear. d Bobo said recently they have another video with a human in the frame, but I guess they are not releasing the info, no email back from OP dude so far. Maybe its hush hush, MIB got to them??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) I am surprised that a mangy bear would be so well received. The Patterson creature would be insulted. Edited December 3, 2015 by Patterson-Gimlin 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Would it be safe to say a chimp would have similar points? I also see you dont subscribe to the idea that the photo is of a nursing sow facing the camera with a cub underneath..... I think you have it positioned right rogue whatever it is. If you look at a chimp's pelvic bones they're flat and go to the sides when on all fours. A bear's pelvic bones stick up and create a protrusion. This is an illustration of a skeleton at the University of Guelph. Look at where the back arches compared to the Jacobs? Also look how long the chimp's feet are in that model compared to the shorter bear feet on the Jacob creature? Chimps can make a fist with their feet. Im much less concerned about the feet and much more concerned about the bulbous head. That is what strikes me as completely unbear like. If its a Bear? What are we seeing there? And I cannot find a chimp or a bear in a bent in half position to see what bumps or protusions are shown on a known animal. Also in the first jacobs photo, what strikes me as unbearlike is the animals withers are much higher than its croup. Just like the chimp photo i found. A bear is opposite as you can see in rogues skeleton illustration, the croup is much higher than the withers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts